After banish permanently the account of the (still) President of the United States, Donald Trump, on the platform, Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, went to the network itself to explain his reasons. In a series of tweets, the executive says that, although it is not a source of pride, the decision to ban Trump was the most correct one that Twitter could have made, given the current scenario.

https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690

“I don’t celebrate or take pride in the fact that we had to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After clear warning that we would take this action, we made the decision based on information we have based on threats to safety and incitement to physical violence on and off Twitter. But was that the right thing to do?” he asked, launching into a lengthy explanation.

“That said, having to ban an account has real and significant ramifications. While there are clear and obvious exceptions, I think a ban is a failure on our part to foster healthy conversation. And a moment to reflect on our operations and the environment around us,” added Twitter’s chief executive, clearly concerned that banning Trump had set a “dangerous precedent.”

What precedent?

The dangerous precedent cited by Jack Dorsey in one of his Twitter posts is that the platform, by banning Trump's account, would be signaling that the ban is a failure to "promote healthy conversation." Twitter, in fact, saw its shares fall after a stampede by supporters of President Donald Trump from the platform, precisely under the accusation that the social network was restricting freedom of expression with the block.

The CEO further claimed that the fact that other social networks If Twitter Inc. had followed a similar path and also banned Donald Trump or deleted comments labeled as fake news or inciting violence, it would have given a false impression. “The check and accountability on that power has always been that a service like Twitter is a small part of the larger public conversation that happens on the Internet. If people don’t agree with our rules and enforcement, they can simply find another Internet service,” he said.

“This concept was challenged last week when several providers of essential internet tools also decided not to host what they deemed dangerous. This moment may call for such a dynamic, but in the long run it will be destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open internet. A company making a business decision to moderate itself is different from a government removing access, but it can feel the same way,” he concluded.

Through which channels you reach those people, classic and out of the box. CNN Business e Android Central

Image: Gordon Johnson/Pixabay/CC